If intergalactic space expands, why doesn't the speed of the light crossing it increase proportionally, in order to remain CONSTANT?
It fails its own premises.
One way light does redshift over distance is as multi spectrum packets, as the higher frequencies dissipate faster. Yet that would mean we are sampling a wave front and the quantification of light is an artifact of its detection and measurement.
Someone who should have been taken more seriously;
"Once upon a time, Caltech's Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate leader of the last great generation of physicists, threw down the gauntlet to anyone rash enough to doubt the fundamental weirdness, the quark-boson-muon-strewn amusement park landscape of late 20th-century quantum physics. "Things on a very small scale behave like nothing you have direct experience about. They do not behave like waves. They do not behave like particles ...or like anything you have ever seen. Get used to it."
Carver Mead never has.
As Gordon and Betty Moore Professor of Engineering and Applied Science at Caltech, Mead was Feynman's student, colleague and collaborator, as well as Silicon Valley's physicist in residence and leading intellectual. He picks up Feynman's challenge in a new book, Collective Electrodynamics (MIT Press), declaring that a physics that does not make sense, that defies human intuition, is obscurantist: It balks thought and intellectual progress. It blocks the light of the age."
"During a lifetime in the trenches of the semiconductor industry, Mead developed a growing uneasiness about the "standard model" that supposedly governed his field. Mead did not see his electrons and photons as random or incoherent. He regarded the concept of the "point particle" as an otiose legacy from the classical era. Early photodetectors or Geiger counters may have provided both visual and auditory testimony that photons were point particles, but the particulate click coarsely concealed a measurable wave."
This idea of a quantum of electron or light is their application of whole numbers to waves which are real numbers that can be infinitesimally small (ex: 0.000000000001).
de Broglie’s conclusion was that an object as small as an electron would act within a wave."
How did they come up with the smallest unit of electron? Math based on other experiments which also ignore the limits of the instruments.
How did they manage to be able to send ONE electron or photon at a time?
What they were shooting every 10 seconds was a tiny bit of energy which they assume is a single electron or photon.
They apply whole numbers calculations to what needs a real number. There is such a thing as an infinitesimally small wave, but they invented the idea of a quantum of electricity or light.
It's like measuring a building in bricks instead of meters which can be 0.00000000000000000001 small.
I will be writing a post on how chemistry and their idea of electron valences (calculated by probability) is better explained with the idea that there isn't just exact whole numbers of electrons.
Example: An atom with 4 protons and 4.000000001 electron (force) can bond to an atom with 8 protons and 7.99999999 electron (force). Whole numbers are the property of protons, not electrons which are not particles but energy (wave).
And that's why the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says you cannot find the electron!
I've come at the situation from a more philosophic approach, in that physics still posits the platonic realm of ideal forms, aka, formalized math, as foundational, rather than abstraction. In the void, there is no 1+1=2, because there are no objects and no process of addition.
Epicycles were brilliant math. It's just our point of view is subjective, not objective.
My bigger issue has been with spacetime.
In that three dimensional space is a mapping device. Cartesian space. It is no more foundational than longitude, latitude and altitude are foundational tot he surface of this planet. If the coordinates are not specified, it's just a concept, but if they are, it is a specific frame. As each of us is the center point of our entire frame of reality, it would seem space is zillions of dimensions.
As for time as a dimension, as mobile organisms, this sentient interface our body has with its situation functions as a sequence of perceptions, in order to navigate, so it is our experience of time that it is this narrative flow, from past to future, while the evident reality is that activity and the resulting change turns future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns.
There is no dimension of time, because the past is consumed by the present, to inform and drive it. Causality and conservation of energy. Cause becomes effect.
No time traveling around the fabric of spacetime, as it is more a tapestry being woven of strands being pulled from what was woven.
Different clocks can run at different rates simply because they are separate actions. Think metabolism.
Energy is conserved, because it manifests this presence, creating time, temperature, pressure, color, sound, as frequencies and amplitudes, rates and degrees.
The present goes past to future, as the patterns generated go future to past, because energy drives the wave, the fluctuations rise and fall. No tiny strings necessary.
Consciousness also goes past to future, as the perceptions, emotions and thoughts giving it form and structure go future to past. Suggesting consciousness manifests as energy.
As it is the digestive system processing the energy, feeding the flame, while the nervous system sorts the patterns, signals from the noise, there does tend to be this cognitive focus on the patterns, the information, then trying to reverse engineer explanation from what is effect.
Thanks for the links. I find it funny that they talk about waves in packets as it's divisible to a minimum 1. Energy can be infinitesimally small, so what is a minimum packet?
I have a hard time with Einstein and others talking about the curvature of space which is an artifact from the belief of big bang theory which is a throwback to the idea of creation.
Einstein said that if you had a telescope strong enough to see infinity, you would see the back of your head.
Somehow the definition of dimensions gets ignored here. A dimension is a direction in which it goes on forever. Up/down, left/right, forward/backward.
To go infinitely forward and end up where you are as Einstein thought means you didn't go forwards but also up/down or to the right/left, creating a circle path. But he and other mathemagicians believe that space curves which means they think the universe is sitting in a sphere container like a balloon.
As for time, it's a byproduct of things happening, just like speed is a measure of movement relative to a point. This idea of the past and future happening at the same time is very odd magical thinking that leads to the many worlds (or multiverse) theory which assumes that the physical universe is merely a “simulation" among other simulations.
Time travel never made sense to me and it feels like it's the tendency of the human mind to think it can choose again, much like a person who made a grave mistake of losing a loved one could tell himself in the past to do it different “next time" instead of learning to not do it NOW or in the future.
It would seem more a function of the apparatus, than the light.
It does seem there is a problem in mathematical circles, with the concept of infinity.
My argument is that given measures of duration and distance shrink to zero in a frame moving at the speed of light, then a frame with the fastest clocks and longest rulers would be closest to the equilibrium of the vacuum. The unmoving void of absolute zero.
So space is the absolute and the infinite. Equilibrium and infinity.
When they try to model infinity, it keeps circling back to equilibrium. Those pesky recursive feedback loops.
Gravity is that centripetal dynamic. Possibly the default for waves is to synchronize. One big wave is more efficient than lots of small waves.
The quasars occasionally shooting out the poles of galaxies are basically giant lasers and lasers are synchronized light waves.
So if this dynamic is foundational to the various properties our tactile, object oriented primate brains see as fundamental, weight, density, definition, aka, matter, rather than an effect of them, it would obviate the need for Dark Matter.
Syntropy.quest, great idea! What, if you presuppose that consciousness in the idealistic sense of Bernardo Kastrup is the starting point of it all, and that what we perceive as reality is a selforganizing system/structure/field composed of/filled with/organized by „meaning/coherence“, expresseing itself in manifested quantum potentiality, described in particle physics, chemistry, numbers/mathematics, felt as feeling, thought as thoughts, seen as beauty/ugliness or whatever perceivable phenomena? If yes, we would to develop the tools to sync with this structure, to understand and experience the limitless supply it offers to „exist“ (whatever that is).
Thank you for sharing your very interesting thoughts. I have tried to understand selforganization and negentropy since I came across these concepts about 45 years ago.
There's another "y." A higher level, more powerful one.
Community.
Every life form lives in communities of cooperation and competition. Without community, no single cell, no plant, not animal, can survive. Humans take this to such an extreme that we live in and plan to plan to plan communities. Throughout our lives, our communities are constantly changing, contstantly "syntrophizing."
Cooperation defines community. Communities, therefore, define morality - each community has it's own moral rules and its own enforcement systems, which depend on the power needed behind the rule. But total morality leads to stagnation. The escape?
Competition. Individuals in a community compete and find better ways to syntrophize. Communities compete with each other and build higher level communities that cooperate and compete at higher levels.
The complexity is insane. Humans consist of cells whose very survivial depends on the cooperation and competition of internal processes that maintain the community and isolate it from the environment. Cells maintian physical and process boundaries to let healthiness (morality?) in and exclude unhealthiness (imorality?) different types of cells form tissue communities - that take cooperation to a new level. Tissues have different healthinesses and different unhealthinesses to maintain. If a tissue is damaged, it's members cooperate to eliminate the bad (damaged tissue) and grow new good healthy tissue. It's not perfect, but it's syntrophic. Tissues cooperate to create bodily structures and organs - that cooperate and compete. Each organ has it's own mission, each limb has it's own mission. They compete. If one limb is damanged, the other get's more food, gets more exercise, and grows stronger. But when both are present, their competition creates harmony and raises the individual to a higher level.
It doesn't stop. Cells, tissues, limbs and organs, organ systems create the body and the mind.
And the spirits? A single cell has the spirits of life or it dies. A tissue, a limb, an organ, and organ system. Same same. The body has the spirits of life, or it dies. The mind has the spirits of life, or it dies.
And the body, mind, and spirits create communities. Fish create schools. Dogs create families. Trees create forests. Communities.
Humans create communities of communities of communities. Sometimes with intent, often without conscious intention.
Unconscious communities? Cell communities of like and unlike cells, like the pond scum, are not conscious. Bodily tissue communities not concious. Most communities are not conscious and we are not conscious of them.
It's a powerful force. But there's a problem.
Communities have no morals. Communities have no peers. Communities eat individuals and communities with no compassion. Humans live in and create communities, but today, we have no science of community. We don't study communities.
There are researchers who have studied the principles of communities: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
There's this obsession with the idea that consciousness is from some external non physical force.
They believe order comes from something "higher", whether it be god or some big bang.
Let's apply Occam's razor here.
Our brains are ridiculously complex and our environment is far from perfectly ordered. Consciousness is a form of intelligence that results from a mind dealing with uncertain environments, whether it be a crazy society or difficult environment.
BTW, a lot of what physics assumed is being disproven in favor of a dynamic universe that doesn't have a start or an end. Dark matter and dark energy are just made up to make their obsolete formulas work.
Heinz von Foerester on reality and how particles are made up in order to fit assumptions aka beliefs of scientism.
My take is that Life manifests as syntropy, while matter exhibits entropy. As an example, if you and succeeding generations throw a brick out of your window every day, you will never get a gothic cathedral over time - there will just be a big pile of rubble. Take a single celled living oranism and put it in a pond, and after several billions of years....
Self-organization is NOT a violation of the 2nd law (Entropy grows in closed systems). To wit: The entropy of a perfectly homogeneous ensemble of matter (Gas in the easiest case) is smaller than that of an irregularly dispersed/structured ensemble. S=kxlnW.
Then: Local reduction of S is traded for by (greater) increases elsewhere in the system.
I first started hearing about Negentropy from Tom Cowan I believe. Then it was Eileen McKusick who referred to it as syntropy which I found much more appealing and accurate. Eileen is a is a sound healer and writes about sound therapy.
I’m very happy to call myself a syntropist, and would love to participate in this endeavor.
I am intrigued by the idea that opposites do not exist without each other. My internal wisdom source reflects this. the more I can embrace equanimity, more peace I feel.
Current cosmology is part of the hustle as well.
If intergalactic space expands, why doesn't the speed of the light crossing it increase proportionally, in order to remain CONSTANT?
It fails its own premises.
One way light does redshift over distance is as multi spectrum packets, as the higher frequencies dissipate faster. Yet that would mean we are sampling a wave front and the quantification of light is an artifact of its detection and measurement.
Someone who should have been taken more seriously;
https://worrydream.com/refs/Mead_2001_-_Interview_(American_Spectator).html
"Once upon a time, Caltech's Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate leader of the last great generation of physicists, threw down the gauntlet to anyone rash enough to doubt the fundamental weirdness, the quark-boson-muon-strewn amusement park landscape of late 20th-century quantum physics. "Things on a very small scale behave like nothing you have direct experience about. They do not behave like waves. They do not behave like particles ...or like anything you have ever seen. Get used to it."
Carver Mead never has.
As Gordon and Betty Moore Professor of Engineering and Applied Science at Caltech, Mead was Feynman's student, colleague and collaborator, as well as Silicon Valley's physicist in residence and leading intellectual. He picks up Feynman's challenge in a new book, Collective Electrodynamics (MIT Press), declaring that a physics that does not make sense, that defies human intuition, is obscurantist: It balks thought and intellectual progress. It blocks the light of the age."
"During a lifetime in the trenches of the semiconductor industry, Mead developed a growing uneasiness about the "standard model" that supposedly governed his field. Mead did not see his electrons and photons as random or incoherent. He regarded the concept of the "point particle" as an otiose legacy from the classical era. Early photodetectors or Geiger counters may have provided both visual and auditory testimony that photons were point particles, but the particulate click coarsely concealed a measurable wave."
Yes, quantizing is an assumption.
This idea of a quantum of electron or light is their application of whole numbers to waves which are real numbers that can be infinitesimally small (ex: 0.000000000001).
https://substack.com/@robc137/note/c-297587517
de Broglie’s conclusion was that an object as small as an electron would act within a wave."
How did they come up with the smallest unit of electron? Math based on other experiments which also ignore the limits of the instruments.
How did they manage to be able to send ONE electron or photon at a time?
What they were shooting every 10 seconds was a tiny bit of energy which they assume is a single electron or photon.
They apply whole numbers calculations to what needs a real number. There is such a thing as an infinitesimally small wave, but they invented the idea of a quantum of electricity or light.
It's like measuring a building in bricks instead of meters which can be 0.00000000000000000001 small.
I will be writing a post on how chemistry and their idea of electron valences (calculated by probability) is better explained with the idea that there isn't just exact whole numbers of electrons.
Example: An atom with 4 protons and 4.000000001 electron (force) can bond to an atom with 8 protons and 7.99999999 electron (force). Whole numbers are the property of protons, not electrons which are not particles but energy (wave).
And that's why the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says you cannot find the electron!
Some links you might find interesting;
https://christov.metacontinuum.com/My_Publications/2008/WAMOT1372.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/58442796/A_Challenge_to_Quantized_Absorption_by_Experiment_and_Theory?email_work_card=view-paper
I've come at the situation from a more philosophic approach, in that physics still posits the platonic realm of ideal forms, aka, formalized math, as foundational, rather than abstraction. In the void, there is no 1+1=2, because there are no objects and no process of addition.
Epicycles were brilliant math. It's just our point of view is subjective, not objective.
My bigger issue has been with spacetime.
In that three dimensional space is a mapping device. Cartesian space. It is no more foundational than longitude, latitude and altitude are foundational tot he surface of this planet. If the coordinates are not specified, it's just a concept, but if they are, it is a specific frame. As each of us is the center point of our entire frame of reality, it would seem space is zillions of dimensions.
As for time as a dimension, as mobile organisms, this sentient interface our body has with its situation functions as a sequence of perceptions, in order to navigate, so it is our experience of time that it is this narrative flow, from past to future, while the evident reality is that activity and the resulting change turns future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns.
There is no dimension of time, because the past is consumed by the present, to inform and drive it. Causality and conservation of energy. Cause becomes effect.
No time traveling around the fabric of spacetime, as it is more a tapestry being woven of strands being pulled from what was woven.
Different clocks can run at different rates simply because they are separate actions. Think metabolism.
Energy is conserved, because it manifests this presence, creating time, temperature, pressure, color, sound, as frequencies and amplitudes, rates and degrees.
The present goes past to future, as the patterns generated go future to past, because energy drives the wave, the fluctuations rise and fall. No tiny strings necessary.
Consciousness also goes past to future, as the perceptions, emotions and thoughts giving it form and structure go future to past. Suggesting consciousness manifests as energy.
As it is the digestive system processing the energy, feeding the flame, while the nervous system sorts the patterns, signals from the noise, there does tend to be this cognitive focus on the patterns, the information, then trying to reverse engineer explanation from what is effect.
Thanks for the links. I find it funny that they talk about waves in packets as it's divisible to a minimum 1. Energy can be infinitesimally small, so what is a minimum packet?
I have a hard time with Einstein and others talking about the curvature of space which is an artifact from the belief of big bang theory which is a throwback to the idea of creation.
Einstein said that if you had a telescope strong enough to see infinity, you would see the back of your head.
Somehow the definition of dimensions gets ignored here. A dimension is a direction in which it goes on forever. Up/down, left/right, forward/backward.
To go infinitely forward and end up where you are as Einstein thought means you didn't go forwards but also up/down or to the right/left, creating a circle path. But he and other mathemagicians believe that space curves which means they think the universe is sitting in a sphere container like a balloon.
As for time, it's a byproduct of things happening, just like speed is a measure of movement relative to a point. This idea of the past and future happening at the same time is very odd magical thinking that leads to the many worlds (or multiverse) theory which assumes that the physical universe is merely a “simulation" among other simulations.
Time travel never made sense to me and it feels like it's the tendency of the human mind to think it can choose again, much like a person who made a grave mistake of losing a loved one could tell himself in the past to do it different “next time" instead of learning to not do it NOW or in the future.
It would seem more a function of the apparatus, than the light.
It does seem there is a problem in mathematical circles, with the concept of infinity.
My argument is that given measures of duration and distance shrink to zero in a frame moving at the speed of light, then a frame with the fastest clocks and longest rulers would be closest to the equilibrium of the vacuum. The unmoving void of absolute zero.
So space is the absolute and the infinite. Equilibrium and infinity.
When they try to model infinity, it keeps circling back to equilibrium. Those pesky recursive feedback loops.
Light radiates toward infinity. Structure coalesces toward equilibrium.
Gravity is that centripetal dynamic. Possibly the default for waves is to synchronize. One big wave is more efficient than lots of small waves.
The quasars occasionally shooting out the poles of galaxies are basically giant lasers and lasers are synchronized light waves.
So if this dynamic is foundational to the various properties our tactile, object oriented primate brains see as fundamental, weight, density, definition, aka, matter, rather than an effect of them, it would obviate the need for Dark Matter.
Syntropy.quest, great idea! What, if you presuppose that consciousness in the idealistic sense of Bernardo Kastrup is the starting point of it all, and that what we perceive as reality is a selforganizing system/structure/field composed of/filled with/organized by „meaning/coherence“, expresseing itself in manifested quantum potentiality, described in particle physics, chemistry, numbers/mathematics, felt as feeling, thought as thoughts, seen as beauty/ugliness or whatever perceivable phenomena? If yes, we would to develop the tools to sync with this structure, to understand and experience the limitless supply it offers to „exist“ (whatever that is).
Thank you for sharing your very interesting thoughts. I have tried to understand selforganization and negentropy since I came across these concepts about 45 years ago.
There's another "y." A higher level, more powerful one.
Community.
Every life form lives in communities of cooperation and competition. Without community, no single cell, no plant, not animal, can survive. Humans take this to such an extreme that we live in and plan to plan to plan communities. Throughout our lives, our communities are constantly changing, contstantly "syntrophizing."
Cooperation defines community. Communities, therefore, define morality - each community has it's own moral rules and its own enforcement systems, which depend on the power needed behind the rule. But total morality leads to stagnation. The escape?
Competition. Individuals in a community compete and find better ways to syntrophize. Communities compete with each other and build higher level communities that cooperate and compete at higher levels.
The complexity is insane. Humans consist of cells whose very survivial depends on the cooperation and competition of internal processes that maintain the community and isolate it from the environment. Cells maintian physical and process boundaries to let healthiness (morality?) in and exclude unhealthiness (imorality?) different types of cells form tissue communities - that take cooperation to a new level. Tissues have different healthinesses and different unhealthinesses to maintain. If a tissue is damaged, it's members cooperate to eliminate the bad (damaged tissue) and grow new good healthy tissue. It's not perfect, but it's syntrophic. Tissues cooperate to create bodily structures and organs - that cooperate and compete. Each organ has it's own mission, each limb has it's own mission. They compete. If one limb is damanged, the other get's more food, gets more exercise, and grows stronger. But when both are present, their competition creates harmony and raises the individual to a higher level.
It doesn't stop. Cells, tissues, limbs and organs, organ systems create the body and the mind.
And the spirits? A single cell has the spirits of life or it dies. A tissue, a limb, an organ, and organ system. Same same. The body has the spirits of life, or it dies. The mind has the spirits of life, or it dies.
And the body, mind, and spirits create communities. Fish create schools. Dogs create families. Trees create forests. Communities.
Humans create communities of communities of communities. Sometimes with intent, often without conscious intention.
Unconscious communities? Cell communities of like and unlike cells, like the pond scum, are not conscious. Bodily tissue communities not concious. Most communities are not conscious and we are not conscious of them.
It's a powerful force. But there's a problem.
Communities have no morals. Communities have no peers. Communities eat individuals and communities with no compassion. Humans live in and create communities, but today, we have no science of community. We don't study communities.
We understand so little.
to your health, tracy
Substack: https://spiritsoflife.substack.com/
There are researchers who have studied the principles of communities: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
I too am syntropist.
There's this obsession with the idea that consciousness is from some external non physical force.
They believe order comes from something "higher", whether it be god or some big bang.
Let's apply Occam's razor here.
Our brains are ridiculously complex and our environment is far from perfectly ordered. Consciousness is a form of intelligence that results from a mind dealing with uncertain environments, whether it be a crazy society or difficult environment.
BTW, a lot of what physics assumed is being disproven in favor of a dynamic universe that doesn't have a start or an end. Dark matter and dark energy are just made up to make their obsolete formulas work.
Heinz von Foerester on reality and how particles are made up in order to fit assumptions aka beliefs of scientism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev7e9sfWIJo
You don’t know what you don’t know. And by you I mean me. Interesting, I’m gonna check out your site.
My take is that Life manifests as syntropy, while matter exhibits entropy. As an example, if you and succeeding generations throw a brick out of your window every day, you will never get a gothic cathedral over time - there will just be a big pile of rubble. Take a single celled living oranism and put it in a pond, and after several billions of years....
we all know the outcome.
Self-organization is NOT a violation of the 2nd law (Entropy grows in closed systems). To wit: The entropy of a perfectly homogeneous ensemble of matter (Gas in the easiest case) is smaller than that of an irregularly dispersed/structured ensemble. S=kxlnW.
Then: Local reduction of S is traded for by (greater) increases elsewhere in the system.
I first started hearing about Negentropy from Tom Cowan I believe. Then it was Eileen McKusick who referred to it as syntropy which I found much more appealing and accurate. Eileen is a is a sound healer and writes about sound therapy.
I’m very happy to call myself a syntropist, and would love to participate in this endeavor.
I am intrigued by the idea that opposites do not exist without each other. My internal wisdom source reflects this. the more I can embrace equanimity, more peace I feel.